No Super Church Organization
Malcolm L. Hill

From eternity God had in mind the church (Eph. 3:10-11). This was before the world and man came into existence. The church is a divine institution which was brought into existence by the mind and work of God. It is a glorious body and so high and noble that man cannot fathom it. Its function is to seek and save the lost (Matt. 28:18-20). The church of Christ knows no earthly headquarters and each congregation is to be autonomous with no power over another congregation other than correcting them when they depart from the faith and encouraging them in every scriptural and worthy work.

God has never wanted a super church organization or any earthly organization calling the shots for individuals, churches, preachers, and gospel-spreading programs. The Herald of Truth was scripturally organized and did a world of good for a number of years. But what happened to them? One thing that happened was they followed denominationalism. Another thing that happened was they got too big for their britches. They tried to impact the brotherhood by trying to control churches and brethren. If one did not agree with them, then he was cast out as a heathen and a publican. They tried to control churches and preachers by religious politics. In essence they said, "If you will not listen to us, then we will not use you." In this they were like the missionary society. You do it our way or not at all. This kind of control is unscriptural and is not authorized of God.

Christian colleges and universities can be a wonderful thing and can help the cause of Christ tremendously. However, Christian colleges and universities can be a detriment to the cause of Jesus Christ. It all depends on their respect for the Bible and following the truth therein. I have been in Christian education for 40 years and have started 3 institutions to train gospel preachers and Christian workers. I am now serving as the president of Tennessee Bible College and have served in this position for 32 years. It would be very easy for me to play politics and to get into realms unscriptural in the work of Tennessee Bible College. The only stand I am going to take is the Bible stand and no pressure is going to move me from this—so help me God. I do not intend to pressure people to do and see it my own personal way in order to be one of the popes in the Lord's church. I have never considered buying preachers, elders, deacons, and members out by using them in some way in the lectures or work of Tennessee Bible College. How much lower can one get in the work of the Lord by so doing?

But on the other hand, I would like to say more. We have had preachers and teachers bribed and threatened if they appeared on some of our programs. One big operation that is in the brotherhood today has been pressuring others not to appear on programs at Tennessee Bible College, and yet they say they are against missionary societies. They are just like the missionary societies in this kind of work. They also teach that it is unscriptural for the church to give to any work that is not under an eldership. How "zig-zaggy" can they get? They are opposed to the missionary society but work like the missionary society. In fact, they have gotten so big in their own sight that the leader does not have the Christian decency and gentlemanliness to respond to a sincere letter. Who can conclude that God is in this type of action and that such attitudes can succeed? Such conduct is building on the sand of pride and arrogance and the house will fall and great will be the fall of it. They have an anti position in some things at the head of this work while at the same time they are asking churches and individuals to help them in their work. We could say more but will not. Time has a tendency to tell what folks sometimes have been refusing to hear and see.

We are not opposed to church cooperation and orphan homes but have defended them in their right to exist. We can humbly say we know of no other that has stood for church cooperation and orphan care more than we have. So do not conclude that what we are going to say is coming from an anti. When it comes to the work of the Lord, we have concluded that in some things our vision can become blurred and darkened even though when brethren started out to do a certain work their motives may have been pure. For an example, a congregation may have a vision to get the gospel into the world and of course we all desire this. A congregation may ask the brotherhood to help them in this good work and the brotherhood may do so. But let it be remembered that might does not make right. Let our brotherhood remember that God does not want a missionary society nor does He want a super church organizational structure dictating and pressuring churches and brethren in where they can appear and in what activities they may engage. We have in our files where such has and is taking place.

A work may get too big even though the structure is scriptural. God wants local churches doing their scriptural work and He does not want any congregation trying to run the brotherhood through pressure tactics and self-exaltation schemes. He does not want a congregation saying if you will support our work then we will use your preacher. This is like the missionary society. Their big mistake was the desire to control and we fear we see this on the horizon in some present-day work. God does not want a work to get so big that it tries to run the churches and all connected therein. One reason God is opposed to the missionary society is because it wants to control churches and preachers and yet some brethren want to get a work so large that it does the same thing. We find good brethren fighting God's way at times. We truly believe that in the church of Christ if it is not of God it will come to naught in process of time.

Guest Editorial
Kerry Duke

A brother I had never met called me out of the blue. He saw that I was speaking on the 2007 Tennessee Bible College Lectureship on brotherhood projects, missionary societies, disaster relief organizations, Christian colleges, gospel journals, and other works. He wanted to know where I stood on these things. I explained to him that my assignment was to show that brethren are making invalid parallels between current projects and the missionary society. He began to state that his view was that if there is a work of benevolence, edification, or evangelism, it ought to be under a local congregation. Otherwise, he argued, it is unscriptural. I told him that he was making the same arguments the anti brethren make and that he would not be consistent with his position. For instance, I asked him about gospel journals like the Gospel Advocate and the Firm Foundation. Neither of these papers is under a local congregation. "The Gospel Advocate is a business," he replied. I pointed out to him that, business or not, the Advocate teaches the Bible. It engages in edification and evangelism, and yet it does not operate under the oversight of a local congregation. "Is the Advocate scriptural or not?" I asked. He would not give a yes or no, but he insisted that any work of the church—in evangelism, edification, or benevolence—should be done and overseen by the church, that is, by a local congregation.

I also asked this brother about Christian colleges such as Freed-Hardeman. According to his extreme position, this school has been unscriptural in organization from its inception because it is not under a congregation. It and other schools teach the Bible daily to students, and this involves edification and some evangelism. Then came the real rub. You see, this brother is the director of a television work of preaching and teaching. Preachers from across the country speak on this program. The brother asked me what I thought about the program and named some of the preachers—two of whom had taught at Christian colleges for decades! When I asked him if they were guilty of sinning by working at a college which, according to him, has no scriptural right to exist, he said I should ask them. I pressed him on one of these men, asking, "Did this brother sin by teaching in this school all those years?" His answer was, "Not necessarily." I was outraged and replied, "But you say that I am a liberal for believing the same thing?" I ended the conversation and told him I had no further time to waste with such inconsistent chatter.

After the call, I wondered why the brother did this. He had never met me, so why would he be so concerned about what I taught on this? The answer became clear a few days later. One of the other speakers scheduled to speak at the Tennessee Bible College Lectures in 2007 is also a speaker on the program of which the brother that called me is the director. After our phone conversation, the director brother called this preacher and told him that I was critical of the program! He was trying to drive a wedge between this preacher and our school, and it worked. The preacher cancelled his slot at the lectureship, citing as one of his reasons the fact that some at our school had been critical of this program. When this preacher was asked where he got this unfounded information, he said that the brother who called me told him I had been critical of the work. This preacher knew only what the brother told him, which did not include the brother's extreme position on brotherhood works.

The phone call was not about biblical doctrine. It was not about principle. It was pure politics. I am confident that many churches that support the work he directs hold the same view I do, and I know that a number of the speakers on the program do not agree with his radical view of congregational oversight. Will he tell them they are liberal?

The Pharisees told Jesus it was unscriptural to heal on the Sabbath. Jesus in essence said if healing is wrong, then so is circumcising a child or leading an animal to water on the Sabbath. Yet the Pharisees saw no problem with these activities. They condemned Him and turned right around and did in principle the same thing. Sound familiar?

Antidote Questions
Kerry Duke

1. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to use the church contribution to buy a church building? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
   Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
2. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to use the church contribution to buy a water fountain? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
   Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
3. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to use the church contribution to buy hand soap, paper towels, and toilet tissue? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
   Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
4. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to use the church contribution to pave the parking lot? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
   Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
5. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to use the church contribution to buy seed, fertilizer, and a lawn mower for the upkeep of the church lawn? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
   Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
6. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to use the church contribution to pad the pews? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
   Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
7. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to use the church contribution to buy an air conditioner or a ceiling fan? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
   Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
8. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to socialize in a church building paid for out of the church contribution by visiting with one another before and after services, telling jokes, talking about sports, and discussing politics and other earthly matters? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
   Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
9. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to use the church contribution to buy the preacher a car? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
   Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
10. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to use the church contribution to buy the preacher a car which has a CD player in it? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
    Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
11. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to use the church building for a wedding? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
    Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
12. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to use the church building for a men's business meeting? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
    Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
13. Yes or No — Is it scriptural for people to use the restroom of a church building? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
    Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
14. Yes or No — Is it scriptural to use a church building as shelter from a storm? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
    Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________
15. Yes or No — Would using a church building as a shelter from a storm be scriptural if a non-Christian went inside it for protection? Is this: (a) evangelism (b) edification (c) benevolence?
    Give scripture which authorizes this:_____________________

Things Troubling the Church Today — Party Spirit
Ronald D. Gilbert

What do we mean by "party spirit?" William Barclay in his work on Flesh and Spirit—An Examination of Galatians 5:19-23, commenting on the word "factions" made these observations.

"These usages are significant for fixing the meaning which Paul attached to the word. It is to be noted that three out of the four instances occur in contexts in which the main problem lies in competing parties within the church. The Corinthian church was split into competing parties; in the Philippian church preaching had become a means of belittling Paul rather than proclaiming Christ. In Paul the word clearly denotes the spirit of personal ambition and rivalry which issues in a partisanship which sets a party above the church."

W. E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words states the following while discussing factions.

"Denotes ambition, self-seeking, rivalry, self-will being an underlying idea in the word, hence it denotes party making. It is derived, not from eris, strife, but from erithos, a hireling; hence the meaning of seeking to win followers, factions, so rendered in the R. V. of II Cor. 12:20, A.V. 'strifes,' not improbably the meaning here is rivalries, or base ambitions (all the other words in the list express abstract ideas rather than factions); Gal. 5:20; Phil. 1:17. . ."

From these comments we see that "party spirit" centers around men and is promoted by these ambitious, self-seeking, self-willed men. It is also interesting to note that those who are promoting this "party spirit" set the party above the church. The church at Corinth in I Corinthians 1:10-13 and 3:1-7 shows the party spirit. The disciples of Christ showed this spirit in Mark 9:38-40 when John mentioned that they "saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us." John seemed to be against this man because he was not among John's group. Jesus rebuked John and told him not to forbid him, "For he that is not against us is on our part" (Mark 9:40). Here John reminds us a great deal of many today who seem to feel if you are not in their group or party, then they are against you.

Today much of the "party spirit" seems to center around schools, brotherhood papers, and lectureships. Perhaps the "party spirit" is more evident today than it has been in the past 50 years or so. Many are judges as faithful or not based on the school they support, the paper they write for, and the lectureship they speak on. This "party spirit" within the Lord's church today is doing much damage. The devil must be enjoying all the bickering and factions that are taking place today within the church. Consider these attitudes as being symptoms that "party spirits" are wide-spread among us.

1. Not willing to hear both sides of an issue or dispute, just blind loyalty to your side.
2. Not willing to rejoice over good done by those outside of your party or group.
3. Not willing to search for truth but blindly backing your party even in inconsistent arguments.
4. Not willing to fellowship those outside your party; just look at the lectureship speakers lists.
5. Not willing to be a just person. Some see no flaws with those in their party and go to great lengths to fault-find with those outside their party.
6. Not willing to be balanced. This causes men and parties to become extremists.
7. Not willing to recognize "weightier matters." With some it seems every passage and thought leads to their issue which in many cases is to justify their party and condemn all other parties.

A "party spirit" is hurting the Lord's church today. Small men promote the party spirit. Mature men are willing to look beyond themselves and see the big picture and promote truth, love, unity, and the Spirit of Christ. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 2:5).

Straddling the Fence
David Hill

If you're from middle Tennessee like I am, you immediately don't like the sound of straddling the fence. Most fencing I've seen in these parts is barbed-wire fencing, and it has never been something I'd want to domdash;straddle a fence. It is generally not a pretty picture. Yet, some seem to like it in life, and even in the church. Maybe there is a false appeal to the idea of pleasing both sides. However, the end result can be painful! Why straddle the fence? Would anyone say that our Lord was a fence straddler? I can recall several accusations, even false ones, made against the Lord, but I don't recall even a false charge of straddling the fence.

The Lord taught against hypocrisy. In Matthew chapter 6 He taught against hypocrisy in religious practice. He warned against showy religion (Matt. 6:1-8). Hypocrisy has its roots in stage acting—something well-known in the Lord's time on earth with the world's cultural center in Athens. The word carries the same meaning in acting: a part of something or someone you're not, and the Lord dealt with hypocrisy throughout the sermon on the mount. Who more than the Lord could oppose such behavior, because he knew the heart of man (John 2:25), and he was not fooled by outward appearances. Mankind is easily fooled, and that is why fence straddling will do for some. Fence straddling is hypocrisy. One has to act one way with one side and another way with the other side, and both ways could be different to what the person really is. Any way you slice it, it's hypocrisy and that is absolutely against Christianity (Matt. 5:37). If one would act like the world when he/she is with the alien sinner, and like a saint with the saints, that's fence straddling, hypocrisy, and wrong (Matt. 6:24).

In the church acting can surely take place. Peter played the hypocrite with the Jew and Gentile (Gal. 2:1-13) and so did "the son of exhortation" Barnabus (2:14). Now, if the apostle Peter could be pulled into such activity, you and I had better watch out! Think of itmdash;an apostle straddling the fence? Yes, it happened and the apostle Paul rebuked him to the face because he was to be blamed. The apostle Paul's life was certainly not given to fence straddling, so he like the Lord stood boldly against such harmful activity.

It is too often the case that individuals will play different groups in the church. You have heard the old saying, "playing both sides against the middle" and people will do this in the church for their own advantage. It will be short lived even if they have their way for they will soon be forced to take a side. Just like Paul with Peter, a gospel preacher and faithful member will not allow such activity to exist very long without rebuking it and shining the light of truth upon the wrong. When an individual in the church gets along famously with the good and the rebellious member as well, look out! Some fence straddling is going on! We often know it as being "two-faced." An elder that can play both sides, look out! And a gospel preacher accepted by all, yes there is trouble there. Maybe the trouble is not yet realized, but there is trouble none the less. But it seems if one is a smooth talker and fair speaker he can get by with fence straddling; hypocrisy. Some say, "Well, I know he goes some places he shouldn't, or some of his activities I don't like, but he sure can preach!" Fair speech and ear tickling will not fool God (Rom. 16:17-18; II Tim. 4:3), and it cannot last forever. Even if successful on earth, in the life to come the judgment will declare them to be sinners (II Cor. 5:10).

The most recent years in the church have seen a battle of philosophy. Many leaders in the church have desired to see the Lord's church move more toward the denominational philosophy with open fellowship, general doctrine, and crowd appeal. In the midst of this struggle for the hearts and minds of individuals there have been preachers, elders, deacons, and many members who have sought to keep both sides happy. When those individuals have been questioned or called fence straddlers, hypocrites or sinners, the crowd goes wild! But, what else can be said? When a preacher is willing to give up plain Bible doctrine to get along with his friends, what would you call it? And if you're seeking a term that will please everyone, watch out! Many of the above false teachers have been found out with the clear declaration of Abilene Christian University, Pepperdine University, and the "unity meetings" of 2006. Yet, some continue to try and hang on to the fence. If it is barbed wire, then there will be some bleeding yet to come.

Christ's blood was shed to call sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:13). Hasn't there been enough blood shed for the world? Let's get off the fence and make our calling and election sure (II Pet. 1:10) and make our stand clear (Eph. 6:13).

Differing on the Small Things
Paul M. Wilmoth

The church of Christ was established on the first Pentecost following our Lord's resurrection as recorded in Acts chapter two. There is a statement made near the end of that chapter about the reception of the church and about the unity of the church: "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved" (Acts 2:44-47). However, this unity and this favor did not last very long. In chapter four, we are told that the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees were "grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead" (Acts 4:1-2). Then in chapter five we read of the sin of Ananias and Sapphira as they lied to the Holy Ghost, apparently desiring the praises of men for their supposed liberality. The church has been troubled ever since by one thing after the other.

Are all things equal when it comes to problems and Christians differing over these things? Are some things more important than others? Should we spend the same amount of time trying to settle all differences no matter how significant or insignificant? Jesus indicated to the scribes and Pharisees that they were placing the emphasis on the wrong things. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Matthew 23:23).

The church at Corinth was divided over men, meats, idolatry, and spiritual gifts; they were abusing the Lord's Supper and teaching that there would be no resurrection. All of these were problems that needed attention; however, there was one problem that was urgent; it could not wait. Paul told them to take immediate action to insure that the whole church was not contaminated with sin. (See I Corinthians 5). Again, doesn't this seem to indicate that some problems are more pressing than others?

Today, as always, the church has problems; some of these involve doctrinal matters; some involve differences in judgment; some are vitally important; souls are at stake; others are not vital issues. Following is just a partial list of these things.

1. The Lord's Supper: should the Supper be offered at night? Should the Supper be carried to those who cannot attend worship services?
2. Fermented wine or plain grape juice?
3. Should we say "bread" or "loaf?" (I even know of one family who caused a disturbance because the congregation decided to sit and take the Supper instead of stand).
4. Individual cups or one cup?
5. How to care for orphans: use of the collection funds for Christians only, or for all?
6. Women teaching children in Bible classes
7. How old should one be before he becomes a Christian?
8. Sponsoring church for mission or benev-olent work
9. May one be saved without baptism?
10. Use of the instrument in the worship services
11. Use of women in the worship service to pass the Lord's Supper, make announcements, read, etc.
12. Should money be sent to the elders or the preacher in support of mission work?
13. How does the Holy Spirit dwell in the Christian?

The list could go on and on and on.

Now go back and look at these things over which we differ from time to time. Are they all of equal progress and live in unity, we are going to have to be able to distinguish between matters of faith and matters of judgment; between matters of great importance and matters of lesser importance. We must understand that every little thing over which we differ must not be made into a matter of fellowship. Brethren, we need to quit majoring in minors and minoring in majors!

I have read articles by some of my brethren on the subject of Cornelius and his household; some have said that he definitely was baptized in the Holy Ghost while others say that he definitely was not baptized in the Holy Ghost. One of these positions is wrong and thus false! But, do you believe that salvation depends upon agreement in this matter? Some believe and argue that every one who was baptized by John before Pentecost had to be baptized again following Pentecost; others say that this is not true. Both cannot be right; but, is this something we need to withdraw fellowship over?

Let each of us strive to handle the weightier matters first and not split the church over the things that are of lesser importance; and let each of us pray for wisdom to understand the difference.

Finding God in Hollywood?
Kerry Duke

A good man hates evil and turns away from it. He "shuts his eyes from seeing evil" (Isa. 33:15). When he sees and hears the filthy lifestyle of wicked people, it torments his righteous soul (II Pet. 2:7-8). He certainly does not watch these people to be entertained. Putting evil images and words into the soul has an effect that is not good. Solomon said, "Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life" (Prov. 4:23). Christian teachers used to understand and teach this principle.

But times have changed. People today are obsessed with television and movies and have little appetite for Bible study. To accommodate this lack of interest, some churches use the big screen to teach "spiritual truths." Announce a Bible study on Wednesday evening and people yawn; announce an Andy Griffith "study" on Wednesday evening and they are intrigued. Using an illustration from Mayberry is one thing, but when the illustration becomes the focus, it ceases to be an illustration and the Word of God becomes incidental. It is a sad reflection on Christians when they get more excited about having "Bible study" by watching Andy, Barney, and Opie than they do about opening the pages of God's Word. And it is a tragic commentary on teachers that they get their lesson plan and material from television instead of "filling up the barrel with Scripture and preaching from the overflow" as the old-time preachers used to say.

Other churches have gone beyond the "Back to Mayberry" approach. They have replaced Sunday worship services, especially on Sunday night, with a movie that supposedly contains some "spiritual theme" or "moral lesson." What Spiderman has to do with the cross and the church I'll never know, but this is one of the films shown in churches that are tired of hearing the Bible preached.

What is even more disturbing is that this fascination with worldly art has led some Christians to approve of watching ungodly movies just to derive some "spiritual insight"! In the March 2007 issue of the Christian Chronicle, Todd Bouldin of Pepperdine University defended watching filth and criticized us shallow and naïve Christians who refuse to watch such garbage:

"...some Christians will point to sex, violence and profanity as the obvious signs of film's depravity. I do not disagree that these items should be one consideration in whether a film is 'Christian', but I find these surface evaluations of a film's merits shallow and maybe even judgmental when divorced from deeper theological reflection about the meaning and message of the film."

How arrogant and foolish! These comments make me think of Solomon's words, "There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes!" (Prov. 30:13). Godly fathers and mothers try to protect their children from cursing and sex scenes on television, but Mr. Bouldin says they are being shallow and maybe even judgmental. Paul said to think about pure things, but this teacher says to fill your mind with trash as long as you get some "deeper theological" meaning out of it. This is like telling someone to eat a plate of garbage because in spite of all the contamination you'll get plenty of fiber and minerals. Jesus warned about lusting after a woman (Matt. 5:27-28), but Mr. Bouldin says that using this verse alone to judge a movie is "shallow." How any Christian could have the audacity to make such statements is shocking. Mr. Bouldin's condescending, worldly remarks are enough to ignite the righteous indignation of God-fearing Christians everywhere.

This writer says that "movies can nudge us along toward 'Truthiness' without telling all the Truth that we know, just as Jesus often did when he told a parable but did not explain its meaning." But Jesus never made people who cuss and fornicate into heroes in His parables. He never used bad language or said anything offensive to teach Truth. He never used drug dealers and perverts to teach a lesson. He never advised people to go to a local ampitheater and watch a filthy Greek drama in order to sift out some "deep theological message." And he never called good evil and evil good as many movies do.

These university professors claim to think "deeper" than the rest of us. How could such an ignorant brotherhood survive without them? Their insights far surpass those of acknowledged great minds of the past. The celebrated church father Tertullian (145-220) condemned "the father who carefully protects his virgin daughter's ears from polluting words" yet "takes her to the theater himself, exposing her to all its vile words and attitudes" (De Spectaculis, ch. 21). Poor Tertullian. He never learned to overlook these surface evaluations and search for deeper theological insights. Pascal (1623-1662) in his Penses said, "All great amusements are dangerous to the Christian life; but among all those which the world has invented there is none more to be feared than the theater." He said that such drama "is a representation of the passions so natural and so delicate that it excites them and gives birth to them in our hearts, and above all, to that of love." Poor Pascal. His judgmental attitude caused him to miss out on the deep theological meaning of the theater.

I began noticing this trend to review movies in Wineskins magazine a few years ago. Some of the movies were fairly decent; others were full of profanity and sex scenes. But this ungodliness didn't stop the Wineskins staff from finding deep theological reflection in these films. They gave no warnings about the explicit contents, and they certainly did not condemn the sinful behavior promoted in them. Occasionally they incidentally cautioned readers about the language used, as in the "off-color banter" in Saving Private Ryan. These brethren utterly refuse to call sin what it is, even when it is the worst profanity and taking God's name in vain.

Why on earth would Christians use hours of precious time looking for some hidden and vaguely-related spiritual theme in a movie filled with ungodly words and images when they can get everything they need from the pure source—the Bible? This foolishness reminds me of people who admire "art" that is vulgar. Never mind that the painting or sculpture depicts nudity. Never mind that it is indecent and irreverent. The important thing is the cryptic or symbolic message behind the image!

Prior to 1960, Hollywood filmmakers adhered to guidelines of decency contained in the Production Code:

"The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common theme."

"Adultery, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly treated or justified, or presented attractively."

"Scenes of passion should not be introduced when not essential to the plot. In general, passion should so be treated that these scenes do not stimulate the lower and baser element."

"Obscenity in words, gestures, references, song, joke, or by suggestion is forbidden."

"Pointed vulgarity or vulgar expressions, however used, are forbidden."

According to some of the brethren today, these were "surface evaluations" that were "shallow and maybe even judgmental."

The moral standards of some leaders in the progressive wing of churches of Christ reveal the same carefree attitude toward the Bible as their positions on worship, salvation, and fellowship show. A number of brethren in this camp openly promotemdash;not just tolerate, but encouragemdash;drinking alcoholic beverages. They think it is great when a church member exposes herself in front of millions at a beauty pageant. They watch filthy moves and label conscientious Christians who refuse to do so "shallow." And that is the hypocrisy of it all. They go along with cussing, drinking, and indecency, but when we raise our voice against this worldliness, they take up the sword of their worldly spirit and attack us!

Whatever happened to separating from the world? Where is the fear of God and respect for the Bible among these brethren? How can they be puffed up when they ought to mourn? What is the future of the church when college professors tell young Christians that objecting to a movie because of its profanity and sex scenes is a shallow way of looking at things? If drinking, cussing, and going half-naked in public are acceptable to the Lord, then what's the use in being a Christian?

Filled with outrage and disgust as I read this article, I wrote to the editor of the Chronicle:

"Last year the Chronicle raved about Miss America being a member of the church of Christ—a woman who shamelessly exposed herself before millions in indecent underclothing conveniently called a swimsuit. The Chronicle even had the audacity to publish a picture of her in a revealing low-cut dress.

In the March issue of the Chronicle, Todd Bouldin of Pepperdine University says we shouldn't dismiss a movie simply because it contains profanity and sex scenes. These are surface evaluations that are shallow and perhaps even judgmental in that they tend to miss the deeper theological meaning of the film! What is next? A look at the deeper theological themes of Brokeback Mountain?

It is clear that differences in churches of Christ are not just about baptism and instrumental music. Those in sympathy with the Chronicle's obvious leanings have a systemic problem that affects their moral convictions as well."

I urge those of you who feel as I do to write the Chronicle. These people need to know that they do not speak for all churches of Christ.

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret" (Eph. 5:11-12).